1. Google Books, UMI and Other Intriguing Trends in Digital Publishing Joe Wible Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University October 9, 2006

2. Caveats  Weak moment  HMS participation in Google Books Project  Confidentiality  Publishers suing Google

3. Categories of Materials  Journals  Books  Archival Materials

4. Categories of Materials  Journals  Books Recently published books Historical book collections Dissertation  Archival Materials ________ __________________

5. Categories of Materials  Journals  Books Recently published books Historical book collections Dissertation  Archival Materials ________ __________________

6. Study to Determine Availability of Recently Published Books in Electronic Format  Books purchased between 9/04 and 2/06 (18 months)  Publication years 2002-2006  Stratified random sample 9271 titles (10.2% of total titles)

7. Sources Searched  Netlibrary  Ebrary  MyiLibrary  Questia  Overdrive  Other (eg. publishers, associations, free- internet)

8. Fund ClusterNo. TitlesEnglishNon-English General Reference 53951029 US/UK History/Lang/Lit 73457104241 All other Area & Language 49679765142028 Humanities 1809195518540 Interdisciplinary 92886761 Social Science & Education 716256651497 Sciences 6720662199 Media, Reserves 6026011 Total 9106638569 (42.4%) 52496 (57.6%)

10. (N = 15)

12. Categories of Materials  Journals  Books Recently published books Historical book collections Dissertation  Archival Materials __________________ ________

13. What would you do with an offer  To digitize every book in your library with no damage to the book,  To return to you a digital copy for preservation and other purposes, and  To present you and the world with a combined word index to millions of books ???

14. Stanford’s Purposes  Digital Preservation Virtual Bookshelves in Stanford Digital Repository under construction as part of the Stanford Digital Repository For Stanford use only  Other searching and research functions Subtle searching Taxonomic & Associative Searching Citation linking & “InfoTools” Alerts & recommendations Better navigation, e.g. Grokker  Digitized books from all sources as test bed for new research

15. Google Books Partner Libraries  Original partners Stanford University of Michigan Harvard New York Public Library Oxford  Later additions University of California Universidad Complutense de Madrid

16. Mechanics of Google Books  3,000 books scanned per day (UC)  Scanning done by hand http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03812955&id=1GB1kuY5-pkC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3 http://books.google.com/books?vid=0sVgqoZH8_0vk2uEA6uPPZ&id=n- 28bvRNoroC&pg=RA1-PR1000 http://books.google.com/books?vid=0sVgqoZH8_0vk2uEA6uPPZ&id=n- 28bvRNoroC&pg=RA1-PR1000 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03812955&id=1GB1kuY5-pkC&pg=PR32  Mechanism to get books back if needed  Impact on collection Better care than most patrons Identifies materials for preservation

20. U.S. Copyright Basics  Published before 1923 - Public Domain  Published from 1923 through 1963 After 14 years had to be renewed Approximately 15% renewed (200,000) Remaining 85% in Public Domain  Published after 1963 in copyright Life of the author plus 70 year

21. Orphan Works  http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/  Deals with works in copyright for which the copyright holder cannot be found  Report delivered to Congress Requires “reasonably diligent search” Need to meet that standard with Determinator Also limits remedies  Unknown when Congress will act

22. Copyright Determinator -Why?  Renewal required for US books published 1923-1963 books not renewed are in the public domain  Renewals took place 1950-1992  No electronic records of renewals 1950-1977  Limited access to 1978-1992 records

23. Determinator – Database Module  Create machine-readable database of 1923-1963 renewals First portion of data now available http://sulwebappdev1.stanford.edu:4040/determinator/bin/ page?forward=home http://sulwebappdev1.stanford.edu:4040/determinator/bin/ page?forward=home Hand coding has been outsourced for remaining 1950- 1977 records 1978-1992 records to be uploaded soon  Match database records to catalog records Limited fields for matching In discussions with OCLC Will look at internal options if this does not work out

25. Determinator – Benchmark Module  Benchmark database results against manual search Sample set of >500 items from the Stanford catalog have been manually searched for status A subset of those items (100) are being checked by the LOC  Need to demonstrate due diligence

26. Determinator – Legal Review  Legal input on validity of results  Initial contact has been made with a group of copyright experts  Coordinating with General Counsel

27. Categories of Materials  Journals  Books Recently published books Historical book collections Dissertation  Archival Materials __________________ ________

28. Dissertations in Digital Format  ProQuest (UMI) migrating to digital submission 15% submitted electronically last year 30% submitted electronically this year 25 schools in the queue to switch to digital 1.9 million in microfilm, 800,000 as PDFs  Online Submission Form http://dissertations.umi.com/

29. Urgent Need to Switch to Digital Submission  ProQuest still scanning in B&W  Tested color scanning but file size too large  Today’s students are using color heavily  I don’t want to have to loan a dissertation because the data in the ProQuest copy useless

31. Questions?